flop wrote:The point, Dom, which I was trying to make, is: If we all grew up from the sand, formed into apes and eventually stood upright and began speaking somewhat coherently, at which point did we realize, “Hey, you know what, murder, SPAM, child abuse – that stuff is wrong…”

Some people (psychopaths) haven't realised that they are wrong. Those are shared morals that you are trying to project globally. In the same way that in Islamic cultures it is considered immoral to drink, or to have s e x before marriage. You could, just as easily, be raised to think that murder is an acceptable occurrence in society.

Look at Nazi Germany - almost an entire nation managed to turn off their morals very quickly and easily. Your morals may not be the same as the next person, and don't hold our civilisation up as a banner of moralistic compassion, because it's not. (That said, SPAM is utterly reprehensible and spammers should be shot)

No, I don't believe that I do. A soul is a metaphysical, theistic concept. I'm an atheist - we don't believe in souls. We are organisms, plain and simple. We may have more complex cognitive functions than others, but in the end, we are just bones, cartilage and meat - there is no metaphysical dimension to us.

different angle on this topic... most people will agree that there is a spiritual dimension to our existence. There are people who experience this realm fairly intensely. How do you scientifically prove that there are demons? Maybe you can't but there are records of manifestations of it, a lot of it totally non-religious in context or intent.

if there is a spiritual realm then I could believe in a 'higher power'. maybe you can't prove God's existence the same as you can gravity or the 3 states of H2O but there are people who have experienced the reality of him. don't think they are all misguided fools... or disillusional.

as for the forum, the lowest common denominator is climbing so let's keep that in focus! keen on a climb and a beer Guy

Hannes wrote:there are people who have experienced the reality of him. don't think they are all misguided fools... or disillusional.

Disillusional?

Stu made the point earlier (and I agree with it) that if you really go looking for evidence, convinced of truth, it's entirely possible you'll find it. I don't believe those people experienced god any more than the dude who reckons he saw god when he took 6 hits of acid - they're manifestations of what they want to believe, convenient because they're very difficult to prove. But I do think that the majority of those people were either delusional, or were at such a low ebb that they were willing to credit god with any kind of guidance/good fortune that happened.

It's like cults - you don't see cults being full of people who were happy and successful before they joined (although post-joining, it's entirely possible that they drank the Kool-Aid and found the solace they needed) - they are full of people who are looking for options, whose lives were at a dead end. Which makes it easy for cult leaders to turn them into easily-manipulated, sometimes-suicidal sheep.

And of course these people who have "experienced the reality of him" can prove it, right?

You cannot 'prove' a scientific theory 'right'. You can only disprove theory. Part of of the power of science rests in its paradigm whereby null hypotheses are posed and then proven wrong. . . No scientific theory has ever been 'proven'. Null hypotheses have been disproved i.e. if I say something 'is' and test it and it isn't I know that for sure. If I say something 'is' and test it and it is, I don't know for sure that the next time it won't be...... hmm got to be better English for that one!

Anyway, the point is that science runs on a series of theories and paradigms. They are continually tested and evidence is sought to disprove them.

By its very nature religion relies on faith. Part of the point of religion is that it requires faith - i.e. no proof, no theories, no evidence required.

Hi Cheryl, sure you are correct there, faith requires no evidence. However more and more creationists are seeking to prove there beliefs through science. So while religion does require faith, there are also plenty of theories floating around to support a creator.

Intelligent design cannot be a scientific theory? Come on, that's one of the most ridiculous, close-minded things I have ever heard. Surely one could try to prove the design and not the designer? That would not require a \"supernatural\" force, though there are plenty of supernatural elements within the universe that seem \"magical\" to me.
Here's one:
In 1997 a photon (light partical) was split and sent down cables in different directions for 10 kilometers. At the end of the cables they were given the choice of heading in whatever direction they chose. Here is the magical part: on every occasion at the end of their 10km journey the photons mirrored each others path exactly. Remember there is no way for them to physically communicate, but they chose the same path everytime.
Surely there must have been some communication for the mirroring. If that hidden structure, or whatever it is, could be proven to be of intelligent design, then there would be proof of a god. The most amazing thing about this approach would be it's simplicity.

Stu wrote:Intelligent design cannot be a scientific theory? Come on, that's one of the most ridiculous, close-minded things I have ever heard.

It can't be a theory because there's no proof, Stu. It doesn't conform to the definition of a scientific theory - it's not ridiculous or close-minded, it's semantics. Scientific theories demand a level of proof - creationism and intelligent design offer none, they instead require faith..

What? Are you telling me there is not one iota of proof? That is not only rediculous and close-minded, but ludicrous, preposterous and imbecilic... I guess it depends on what you know or \"believe\" in. I'm probably not the person to ask as I have not studied these areas but I think it would be wise to broaden your knowledge on creationism before making such statements. Remember I'm not talking about the bible here but rather what science facts can reveal - this is the approach that modern christians are taking.
If one only uses science facts, then there is no reason it cannot be labled a theory. Reread my previous post on photons, these are the facts (but by no means a good example) that could make up a theory. Dom to be quite honest I think you're talking out of your ass...not to be rude or anything

Stu wrote:What? Are you telling me there is not one iota of proof? That is not only rediculous and close-minded, but ludicrous, preposterous and imbecilic... I guess it depends on what you know or "believe" in. I'm probably not the person to ask as I have not studied these areas but I think it would be wise to broaden your knowledge on creationism before making such statements. Remember I'm not talking about the bible here but rather what science facts can reveal - this is the approach that modern christians are taking.

Yes, I am telling you that there is not one iota of proof. If there is, please show me.. And I'm talking about quantifiable, undisputable proof i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 type of proof.

Got any of that?

These 'modern christians' have realised that they are fighting a losing battle and have adopted a reactive strategy to try to minimise the losses. This type of behavoiur would have had them burned as heretics 400 years ago.

Stu wrote:If one only uses science facts, then there is no reason it cannot be labled a theory. Reread my previous post on photons, these are the facts (but by no means a good example) that could make up a theory. Dom to be quite honest I think you're talking out of your ass...not to be rude or anything

Of course, the only explanation for the photonic behaviour is God/intelligent design. That's a rather substantial leap of logic, Stu, even for you (and a straw man argument at that). As you say, if one uses "science facts [sic]", then yes, it is a theory. The Wikipedia defines a scientific theory as:

Wikipedia wrote:In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence.

What I want to know is, where's the self-consistent model and experimental evidence for intelligent design or creationism? (Note that trying to prove the photonic behaviour on god/intelligent design is fulfilling half of the above criteria, the experimental evidence - there is no self-consistent model for the behaviour).

And there's no need to resort to ad hominem insults just because you're backing a lame horse.

I'm guessing that any facts produced would be considered half-facts.
More people are turning to religion these days than ever - that is not a loosing battle.
Forget the photons, my reference to photonic behaviour does not lead me to the conclusion of a god. It was only part of a larger theory.
Direct me to some 1+1=3 evolution evidence and try this for the opposite:
http://www.plichta.de/english/front.html

If you do read his layman's book look past his substantial ego and concentrate on his discoveries. Don't worry, despite the title only the last chapter relates in a small way to religion.
This is only one example of what does not hit the mainstream.

Like you my upbringing led to my beliefs. But with all the god-bashing these days I decided to explore any proof for my beliefs. I found enough to conclude that I was no more wrong than you are.

My horse might be lame and yours more popular, but there is no evidence that either one is leading the race.

I must admit to really enjoying this debate - mostly it's been pretty interesting and there has been very little screaming and yelling.

Stu - consider this. You have said quite a bit about how modern Christians see creationalism, and as Dom said, those views would have resulted in those people being killed / excommunicated in years gone by. Based on what you've said, Christians seem to keep changing the rules every couple of hundred years.

Therefore, it appears to me that Christianity is tending towards science - but it might take a while to get there.

(Unlike religion, science never claims to have THE answer, it merely offers a defendable theory - therefore science will always adapt and change as our understanding of the universe grows).

Yeah I haven't had a debate like this in ages. I went through my \"why am I here phase\" ages ago, so I'm a little rusty. So far so good, however I don't like to pull my punches as it tends to dilute a debate.
Guy, I in fact agree with you, Christians have been changing the rules over the years and this has led to various branches of the religion of which some vary only a bit while others are simply weird. Take the Roman Catholics as an example.
That is the difference between the followers of Christianity and Christianity itself. Christianity according to the bible is very simple, yet man has complicated it to the point where we are today.
Not entirly sure what you mean by 'tending towards science'? but what Christians have realised is that physics, mathematics, etc. could all be a valuable tool in proving the existence of God, though if wrong it could also prove the opposite and the downfall of religion. Though as I have said before this has not happened and I would say that in about 10-20 years as technology and knowledge of the universe improves evidence will become more, leading towards the proof of one or the other - wishful thinking? Maybe...
At this point though I guess \"evidence\" would be a better word to use than \"proof\".
Does Richard Dawkins attack creationism or merely try to prove the opposite, as I enjoy reading all viewpoints but not unbending ones.

I say tending towards science because it appears to me that each time Christians rethink their religion they become more scientific - ie more practically defendable.

Eg our grandparents (and maybe even our parents) believed that Genesis happened in 6 days as it is written. Currently nobody takes that timescale seriously, because it is absurd. Genesis is now seen as a process that should not be taken literally - ie it is now practically defendable (although zero proof exists about a \"god\" starting the ball rolling).

Whilst I've read very little Dawkins (and at the risk of misquoting / misunderstanding him) he's got a problem with people using religion to make the world into a horrible place (9/11, the Crusades, northern Ireland, the inquisition etc etc etc). I certainly agree with that, but I also dislike the way that religion removes peoples freedom (but telling them that someone else is in control) and is used as a tool of power.

That last paragraph is obviously going to get people excited - and I'm not sure that I've written / worded it correctly. However, my employer would rather I got back to work.

The thing that God finds most amusing about Atheists, is the look on their faces when they meet Him (using the male singular here merely for ease of reference). He also has quite a chuckle when the Christians notice all the Atheists are there too!

Either way, science or religion, no-one will know the truth until they shuffle off this mortal coil..... perhaps not even then.

Until then, let's all just do what we are designed or evolved to do... .eat, sleep, go to the loo, climb, and shag! Simple!

I guess I agree. Genesis is the one chapter that attracts a lot of debate.
If you have a bible handy, read the very first couple of lines.

1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.1:3 Then God said, \"Let there be light\"; and there was light.

From here there are 6 more \"Then God said\".

So:
\"In the beginning\" - is this part of day 1? That is the crucial question.

Note that in the rest of the creation that follows it refers to earth. So my thinking is that the 7 days in fact refers to the creation of the inhabitable earth and not the universe.

Another option is that the 7 days could also be veeery long periods of time over which the universe was created? Personally I prefer the first option.

Imagine trying to describe the \"beginning\" to people 2000 years or so ago in the universal terms we understand today.

I agree, using religion to use people is wrong, though why blame religion for that. It is once again people and not God or Christ asking or telling anyone to perform evil. I guess it depends on what religion you follow, as Christianity tries to teach you to question everything, even your own religion.

uhm, you guys do know that this is a climbing forum right? Mr moderator, this is boring and pointless to all the normal people who use this forum,if you want to have debates that are utterly pointless and will never be resolved please go do it somewhere else!!

As the saying goes, \"the only certainties are death and taxes\" and seeing as you can die climbing I personally think this thread to be very applicable, as it brings up a very important question : \"What happens after you die?\" Mkboy, if you are \"deadsure\" about the meaning of life, pls bare with the rest of us who are still seeking the truth. I personally have enjoyed the progression of this discussion very much. Going from a mud fight to decent debate. Well done people.

Last edited by arno on Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

“ Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”

Stu wrote:I guess I agree. Genesis is the one chapter that attracts a lot of debate.

Actually, most of the bible attracts a lot of debate, in my opinion. Plus, I always seem to get kicked out of book stores when I move it to the Fiction section.

Stu wrote:I agree, using religion to use people is wrong, though why blame religion for that. It is once again people and not God or Christ asking or telling anyone to perform evil. I guess it depends on what religion you follow, as Christianity tries to teach you to question everything, even your own religion.

Well, it would be hard for someone for who there is no proof of existence to tell you what to do huh? (oops, I let my atheism slip there for a second). Secondly, Stu, please get off the crack - the last thing that Christianity tells you to is question everything. Now you're just making stuff up.

OK, I realise that this comment hasn't furthered the debate any. I do agree with Guy - Christianity has become more and more reactive with regard to science recently. In my opinion, this has diluted it's fundamental tenet - faith. When people start compromising faith with science, and try to explain what could be metaphor or mythology (or straight fiction, ok?) with half-baked theories, it starts a process of erosion.

Religion should be our myths and, in some cases, the basis of a moral code, but I don't believe it should tell us to disregard what is right in front of us (such as, the earth is x amount of years old, therefor the dinosaurs couldn't have existed). In 1000 years Christianity will be relegated to the same status as Norse or Egyptian or Roman mythology is now. That's evolution.

Morning Dom, just a quick reminder to actually read the bible. Apart from being a religious document it also holds quite an accurate record of history, unless egypt and israel are fictional places??

Once again READ the bible, as I have said I'm pretty rusty but there are several lines in the bible that actually tell you to question your faith and that which is offered to you as fact. Why would I make that up.

If indeed it was being severely diluted I would agree but the faith is unaffected. It is merely broadening ones knowledge of something other than your religion and in doing so attempting to confirm your beliefs.
You are preaching ignorance, which is in my opinion even more dangerous, and to remain in ones cocoon and not look beyond that which you know. There has been minimal or no dilution over 2000 years, and that which has changed could simply been seen as a better understanding of the religion.

I like how in one breath you relegate religion to myth and in the next breath you say it should be the \"basis of a moral code\"?!!!
What?? Let me put it like this: Jesus claimed to be \"The Son of God\". Now there are two options here, either he was or he wasn't. Now you obviously believe that he wasn't.
Now if he wasn't then he was a liar and a cheat who tried to con the world. We should regard not only that but everything else he said as rubbish, as who can trust someone who makes such outrageous false claims.
Why would you want to use religious beliefs as your own moral code, I thought religious codes were invented to subjugate the masses?

If I remember correctly there are about five different versions of how Christians believe the earth was conceived, read my post to Guy, I give a short account of two, there are others as you say.

I'm just curious as to why scientific theory and debate is the domain of atheists and agnostics?
I'm merely expressing what other more qualified people have said before. Some of these half-baked theories are not mine but those produced by individuals qualified.
I thought this was a general discussion on the subject, and didn't know there were rules to followed...
Would you be happy with the word evidence rather than proof?

I never said scientific theory or debate was the domain of agnostics or aetheists.... I was merely trying to point out that if one was going to insist on trying to prove religion in a scientifically defensible manner then it should be done in such a manner.

Also I think the other point that I was trying to get across is that a large part of this debate is not comparing apples with apples. Its a bit like saying blue is a better colour than red.........

Religion (faith) and science are two completely different paradigms. They have both produced some awesome and some pretty horrible things.

One last thing:
Creationist who refute evolution and pose alternative 'theories' (e.g. 'intelligent design' or repackaged creationism) should do so on a sound scientific basis. As for repeating what others more qualified have offered, herewith a quote on 'intelligent design' from an eminently qualified body of people:

\"The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design \"and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life\" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own\"

Stu wrote:Morning Dom, just a quick reminder to actually read the bible. Apart from being a religious document it also holds quite an accurate record of history, unless egypt and israel are fictional places??

Of course, the great flood etc happened. And every animal on earth is a descendant of the pairs that Noah managed to fit on his (immensely) huge ark.

Stu wrote:Once again READ the bible, as I have said I'm pretty rusty but there are several lines in the bible that actually tell you to question your faith and that which is offered to you as fact. Why would I make that up.

As far as I remember, albeit this was from a long time ago, it also tells you not to question gods will/word? If that's the case, then why were scientists burned as heretics/excommunicated for suggesting that the bible may not be the definitive word on how we got here?

Stu wrote:There has been minimal or no dilution over 2000 years, and that which has changed could simply been seen as a better understanding of the religion.

Like the Anglican Church, which says that divorce is OK? Or the Christian Scientists (what ever they babble about)? Or the Mormons? Clearly there's been no dilution there.

Stu wrote:I like how in one breath you relegate religion to myth and in the next breath you say it should be the "basis of a moral code"?!!! ... I thought religious codes were invented to subjugate the masses?

And I do believe that religion, as Karl Marx says, is the opium of the masses, and that it has been used as a subjugatory measure by churches and governments. It's also clear that Christianity is the basis of our accepted moral code, whether I like that or not.

In terms of my comment about relegating the bible to myth - my belief is that the stories of the bible, not the underlying morals (which have been accepted as societal values in 'christian' societies), should be relegated to myth.

Stu wrote:If I remember correctly there are about five different versions of how Christians believe the earth was conceived, read my post to Guy, I give a short account of two, there are others as you say.

As opposed to the one provided in the bible? And you argue against the theory of dilution?

I don't think that Jesus was a "liar and a cheat", in the same was that I don't believe that anyone who sets out to change society is (Karl Marx, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela). As Kinky Friedman once said "They ain't making jews like Jesus anymore" (that should set the cat among the pigeons).

Dom lets try and not go in circles here, GOD did not burn the people at the stake and neither did he ask them to. People did that. The human mind is fallible.

\"Like the Anglican Church, which says that divorce is OK? Or the Christian Scientists (what ever they babble about)? Or the Mormons? Clearly there's been no dilution there.\"

You are mixing points, that was not through dilution but the human mind. These religions were not born through the study of science but their interpretations of the bible and the failings of the human mind, surely you can see that??

And you accept that moral code?
Sleeping with our cousin the ape should not be looked down upon right?

You obviously didn't read my previous posts. There are not enough details in the bible describing \"the creation of everything\", hence the five versions of \"the beginning\" are not opposed to anything or diluted in anyway, they are simply attempting to expand or understand what was not included.

I disagree. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God right and attempted to subjugate the entire world to his will. If he was not that being then why trust him and then he as either a liar or dilusional and insane.
You can't compare Martin Luther King and Madiba as they were seeking freedom not preaching a religion as goes the same with Karl Marx.

Cheryl, \"The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design \"and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life\" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own\"

This is fairly limiting wouldn't you say and incorrect?
Is it not possible to prove the design and not the designer? This would require no evidence of the creator but merely his blueprints of the creation and which opposes the random chaos that is fundemenatal to an evolutionary creation.

A question, was mathematics a human creation or merely discovered by humans?
Now to get some work done.

Stu wrote:Dom lets try and not go in circles here, GOD did not burn the people at the stake and neither did he ask them to. People did that. The human mind is fallible.

My point was that this happened based on what was written in the bible, which is all the 'evidence' that you have of God. I'm pretty sure it's based on something like "smite the non-believer"-type stuff. The entire concept of Christian religion was written by men, not God.

Stu wrote:You are mixing points, that was not through dilution but the human mind. These religions were not born through the study of science but their interpretations of the bible and the failings of the human mind, surely you can see that??

Religion is a human construct based on belief. The construct of Christianity has evolved and speciated. So you're saying that Christianity has not been diluted by the various sects and species? Dude, in the middle ages you had sects killing one another because one sect believed Christ was a pauper and other believed Christ owned material goods.

Stu wrote:And you accept that moral code?

I accept the basic moral aspects of that code, such as not killing people, not harming people, not stealing from people. These are inherent in pretty much every religion, Islam included. What's your point? Are you saying that by accepting this moral code, I'm tarnishing my atheism?

Stu wrote:Sleeping with our cousin the ape should not be looked down upon right?

Dude, what you do in the privacy of your own home is up to you. I don't judge, as long as you don't hurt anyone. You don't need to look to me for acceptance.

Stu wrote:This is fairly limiting wouldn't you say and incorrect?Is it not possible to prove the design and not the designer? This would require no evidence of the creator but merely his blueprints of the creation and which opposes the random chaos that is fundemenatal to an evolutionary creation.

It's not limiting or incorrect at all - by proving the design you would have to prove evidence of the designer, or it would be a logicalfallacy. And you wouldn't be able to prove design without designer, because without evidence of a designer it would be nothing more than happenstance. Do you agree?

Stu wrote:A question, was mathematics a human creation or merely discovered by humans?

Mathematics is a human creation - how can it possibly be anything else??? It's merely an attempt to explain what we don't know.